Prologues: Yes or No

As an editor, I have never liked prologues. As a writer, I’ve never written one. As a reader, I skip them. Yet they keep appearing on my Flogging the Quill blog for criticism. I post the opening lines of the prologue plus the opening lines of the first chapter. Just about all the time, the chapter opening works best.

Yet writers persist. So I did a little survey of opinion on prologues given by blogging agents.

Well, I can tell you from conversations with colleagues that many agents hate them. Frankly, I never had much of an opinion about the prologue until I started talking to other agents about them and reading some of them more carefully.

The truth is that many writers use a prologue as a convenient way to introduce backstory without doing the work it takes to weave it into the book. Let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to write a scene than to slowly unravel the information through the main plotline. I think prologues can often be predictable and lazy. Lazy for the reason I already stated; predictable because I see the same prologue over and over. Thriller writers, for example, love a prologue that introduces the killer making a kill. I’ve seen it a million times.

I don’t think there’s a hard-and-fast rule for or against prologues. I think you just need to make sure it’s as important to the story as every chapter you’re writing and not something you’re doing because it’s easier than the alternative.

A couple of quotes found on the Internet:

“Most agents hate prologues. Just make the first chapter relevant and well written.” —Andrea Brown, Andrea Brown Literary Agency

“Prologues are usually a lazy way to give back-story chunks to the reader and can be handled with more finesse throughout the story. Damn the prologue, full speed ahead!” —Laurie McLean, Larsen-Pomada Literary Agents

1. When the sole purpose of the prologue is to fill the reader in on the back story so the real story can begin.

This is so easy to point out but harder to explain.

In the example of UNDONE, Brooke needed a prologue to show how it all started. To juxtapose who the girls were when they first “meet” versus who they are when chapter 1 begins. The prologue also serves a strong purpose. It sets tone, character, and sets up several questions. Why did Kori become a “I-puke-cheerleaders-for-breakfast” kind of girl? Something has happened but what? Why is Serena obsessed with her by her own admission? And it’s very clear that these two girls have nothing in common in this bathroom scene yet Kori calmly states that they are more alike than Serena knows. They are connected.

This is a prologue with a clear purpose. The reader should want to know more by the end or it doesn’t work. It’s also masterful. Brooke managed to accomplish quite a bit in just 4 short paragraphs and this leads me to the second reason why prologues often don’t work.

2. They are too long.

This is the death of a manuscript if a writer has problem #1 and then it’s combined with problem #2.

3. When the prologue is in a whole different style or voice from the rest of the manuscript.

Then when chapter 1 begins, readers are left flummoxed—especially if that style or tone of voice is never revisited.

4. When the prologue is solely there to provide an action scene to “draw the reader in” but then serves no other purpose or is not connected to the main story arc or is only loosely so.

5. When the prologue introduces the evil character simply so the reader can “know” what is at stake.

I can sum this up in two words. Clumsy writing.

6. When the prologue is supposed to be cool (or I might reword this to say the writer thinks it sounds cool).

Lots of writers overwrite when creating a prologue. It shows.

When all of the above is happening (and there are probably a dozen more reasons why prologues often don’t work), it becomes really clear that the writer isn’t paying attention to dialogue, character development, plot pacing, etc. All key elements of good writing.

This is why almost all the agents I know completely skip the prologue and start with chapter one when reading sample pages. A beginner writer might actually be able to do good character, dialogue, tone, pacing, and whatnot but it’s more than likely not going to show in the prologue.

Now in defense of the prologue, when it’s done well, it’s truly an amazing tool. The number of times I’ve seen a prologue done extraordinarily well in requested submissions? Well, I can count that total on two hands….

I think the easiest litmus test is to take out the prologue and see if your book still makes sense.

If you can take out a prologue and the entire plot still makes perfect sense, chances are the prologue was written to “set the mood”. But here’s the thing about mood-setting: most of the time you can set the mood when the actual story begins. Do you really need to set the mood with a separate prologue? Really? Really really?

Sometimes the answer to those four really is: “yes, really.” Or the prologue is to be used as a framing device around the plot or to introduce a crucial scene in the backstory that will impact the main plot. So okay, prologue time.

What makes a good one?

Short, self-contained, comprehensible.

The reader knows full well while reading a prologue that the real story is waiting. A prologue makes a reader start a book twice, because it doesn’t always involve the protagonist, and starting a book is hard because it takes mental energy to immerse oneself in a world. You’re asking more of a reader, so they’ll want to make sure it’s worth it.

For me, the key statement in Nathan’s post is A prologue makes a reader start a book twice. A very interesting insight.

The problem with prologues is that, generally, they only achieve fullness of meaning in the context of the entire book. Some prologues don’t do this: they are used for things that can’t be explained, for example, in the first person POV of the novel. Those then are just a distraction from the main part of the novel, and in queries and partials, I just want to see if you can write well enough to read past page 10/50/whatever. I don’t start thinking much about how the overall novel looks/holds together till I’m reading the whole thing.

The reason prologues are difficult to write is cause mostly you DO NOT NEED THEM. Like crossword puzzles, if it gets harder and harder to figure out the right way to do it, you’re on the wrong track. Trust me on this: 6 down is MISSSNARKKNOWSALL

I agree with Kristen (Nelson) on this one, and for those of you who are busily crafting what you think is the exception to the rule, remember this: I skip them when I read your work. I read the first page of chapter one. If that grabs me, I might go back and see if you’ve managed to craft the Only Living Prologue Not to Suck.

Signs your prologue sucks: it’s about a dream, it’s about the weather, it’s about someone who is dead, it’s about someone who never appears again in the book. The first sign you are not the exception to this rule is if you think you ARE.

My view is that most prologues amount to “throat-clearing,” the delivery of information, whether it’s in the form of an immediate scene or not, that a writer believes we readers must have or we cannot truly understand what’s going on.

I don’t think writers who use prologues are being “lazy,” it’s just that they haven’t yet thought of a way to weave that information into the story as it happens. And I firmly believe that what readers want from a novel is WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, not what happened THEN.

Well, a prologue isn’t what’s happening now, and the reader knows, just as Nathan Bransford says, that they’re going to have to start reading the story all over again when they get to the first chapter. So I say find a way to get that relevant information or backstory into the weave of the actually story, as it happens.

Ray Rhamey is the author of four novels and one writing craft book, Mastering the Craft of Compelling Storytelling. He’s also an editor of book-length fiction and designs book covers and interiors for Indie authors and small presses. His website, crrreative.com, offers an a la carte menu of creative services for writers and publishers. Learn more about Ray’s books at rayrhamey.com.

Comments

I’m not sure if what I wrote at the beginning of my novel could or would be considered a prologue, but it doesn’t have a chapter marking.

You turn from the dedication page and the action begins like a waterfall, except the water is replaced by words and you see a metaphor that describes the streets of Manhattan as “volcanic.”

It introduces the main character. It tosses you onto the frying pan but it also blatantly states that this is, in fact, the beginning. For the main character, this is where all of the madness truly started.

I don’t know. I read this entire post and I didn’t feel as though any of the things described fit the description of what opens my book for the reader. I’m not sure I’m even calling it a prologue anymore.

Ray, I think the answer is “it depends.” I’ve read some excellent books that begin with a brief prologue, others where the prologue does indeed boil down to literary throat-clearing. In the case of my own novels, when I wrote a prologue and thought it was really good, I simply made it the first scene in the book. It’s worked so far.

After my first few books, I swore off prologues for all the reasons stated above, but I still write the prologue for my own benefit. It serves as a point of reference as I continue through the journey of the book. As I work the manuscript, I pull bits and pieces from it, weave in what matters, and let the rest go.

I agree: it depends. I’ve seen all the examples held up above for why they don’t work. I’ve also seen them where they do work, where they are connected. But then, maybe I’m just not as picky a reader. I used a three-paragraph “prologue,” for lack of a better word, to hook the reader with action, as Kristin Nelson said, but it is connected to the book; it’s a scene from later in the book. Does it work? I don’t know. I’m still querying. But openings are hell. I’ve probably been through two dozen attempts at openings, and at some point you just have to kick the baby out of the nest. I’ll be interested to see other perspectives on this.

In a book like BEFORE I FALL by Lauren Oliver, you have to have that prologue or the first chapter (clocking in at 80+ pages) will not feel like it’s moving toward any clear purpose. She kept it short and to the point, and made it clear that the POV character dies. So the story that follows is not about whether or not she dies, but rather, what happens *after* she dies. Without the prologue to guide the reader, they might not focus on the correct point.

It really does depend on the individual needs of the story, and as is the case with most things in writing technique, “If it works, it works.”

Many prologues don’t work (especially from new writers). Some do. If I feel I need a prologue I specifically ask my beta readers for their opinions on whether or not they think it should be cut. I had a prologue in my very first sci-fi novel (imagine that), and quickly realized during revisions that it was completely unnecessary.

Nathan Bransford’s “litmus test” really does work, but only if you are able to be honest with yourself and your work. It’s easy to get defensive, and it’s hard to axe part of a story you’ve expended a lot of effort in creating.

But the bottom line is, you must do what is best for the story. Not what is best for the writer.

I read mostly fantasy and science fiction, so I’m no stranger to the prologue, and for a time it seemed as though they were a genre requirement. Honestly, it seemed as though every fantasy book I read except for a few had a prologue. The one I’m currently reading does; it’s a page long and introduces the reader to the mood of the story and the writing style, but not much else. I agree that most prologues can be cut and we’d not lose much. And if cutting it would take something away from the story, than it can probably be re-named chapter 1 anyway.

What is a prologue other than a chapter with another name? – if people are so mindless that they can only read a story that is numbered to help them understand what to read first then I suspect they are struggling to understand the concept of a book in the first place – it also frightens me that such people are actually editing books! (A bit like being shown how to click on a seat-belt on a plane and un-click it – people who need showing that are too dangerous to be on a plane in the first place!)

If an author puts something at the front of the book – then I kind of assume he wants me to read it first!

Of course if it is badly written then the reader will not get beyond it – but that has nothing to do with whether it says Chapter 1 or not.

If people skip prologues then they are clearly not interested in what the author has to say.

Judge a book by its content – not on how it is structured and not by what appears at the top of the page – that is just mindless!

Here’s the thing: As writers, we’re told from the get-go that too much backstory isn’t good. If you start Chapter 1 with backstory, you are told that readers won’t get past the first few pages. So you have to figure out how to get all the relevant information weaved into the story, and sometimes the pieces just don’t fit. Prologues offer the opportunity to include those pieces without throwing a wrench in the story.

Personally, I think there’s a lot of unnecessary ado about prologues. Just like ANY aspect of a novel, sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re bad. But they exist within our arsenal of tools, so why would ANYONE automatically dismiss them?

You wanna know what I always skip? Epigraphs. How come no one fusses about those? :P

I agree with the agents here. I think prologues are mainly a lazy way to set up backstory, and if you can’t do that throughout the novel, and if you can’t set the scene right in chapter one, then you should try to think of a different way.

I *LOVE* what they say about being the exception to the rule. We always like to think that we are the exception, when usually, we are the epitome of the rule. Usually, the only reason why people cling to their prologues so much is because they cannot see what the outsider sees because they are too close to their story.

I tried to write a prologue for the novel I’m working on, just to see if it might work. It didn’t. I found that I had used the prologue to give backstory. I cut the prologue and weaved it into the main story. And to be honest, I usually skip prologues anyway.

I think prologues have become a remedy for writers trying not to break any of the “rules of writing”. You can’t dump that info in the story, you can’t flashback to it, and you need to make the reader BE a part of all the important scenes, so you have to show, not tell. . .thus, a prologue seems to be the logical way to avoid those tricky spots.

Unfortunately it’s not looked upon with favor either. LOL

I like commenter Jodi Rodgers’ point about writing the prologue for her own benefit — this seems a great way to figure out what needs to stay and what needs to go elsewhere. :)

Novels are being over analyzed. The rules are starting to rule instead of guide.

For me, it’s about the book. The reasons that have me paying money for a book and looking forward to reading that book have nothing to do with whether or not there is a prologue. If there is, then I am 100% going to read it.

The author felt it was necessary. They’re the artist.

Clive Cussler almost always has a prologue. I’ve enjoyed every single one of them. I would NEVER skip one. They’re too much fun.

A Viking ship sinks with gold on board almost a thousand years ago in the prologue. Then the novel goes on to an adventure as Dirk Pitt discovers it and whatever else they find.

I find it amazing that so many people skip prologues! Why? It’s also a new rule to be down on prologues because 10 years ago you had to have one and now they’re going out of fashion. And if agents hate them, and that’s how you get your foot in the door, probably better not to write one. However, I looked through my stack of paperbacks and of the first 5 I picked up 4 had prologues: Anne McCaffrey, Robert Crais, Stephen Lawhead, Ken Follett . . .

Hello, Although I’ve always had a prologue, I have put what used to be the prologue into the story or removed it. But now I have some characters that are dead BUT important to the story. This Prologue would show how the past affects the present IN SEVERAL WAYS. My character is related to one man which makes her related to a very important person in the country she is in. It is tied into the entire story. Plus, I am allowing their voices to be heard as opposed to just talking about them in the 3rd person. One reader said that the character is the thread that ties the entire story together. I won’t be taking it out but I probably won’t send the Prologue until the agent wants to see the entire (historical) novel. Any thoughts on what I am saying?

Ray, you’ve mentioned the opinions of agents, but what about readers? Or what about books that have sold well that have prologues? Just because a handful (or even a majority) of agents don’t like prologues wouldn’t influence my decision to use one or not.

As a reader, I’ll say that that prologues don’t bother me a bit, in fact, many times I enjoy them if they are well written and play an integral part that is essential to the book, but which would not have fit into Chapter 1.

My novel WE ARE THE WEAPON has a short self-contained prologue, because the first part of the novel jumps forward in time twenty years after that.

Why did I write a prologue? Well, since the entire rest of the novel is centered on the aftermath of nuclear holocaust, I thought that writing about the inciting incident of World War III would be a fitting frame to the central arc of the story.

After the prologue, the book jumps into Part One with a page divider (and an epigraph).

Personally, I don’t mind prologues, epigraphs, or any variation thereon as long as the writing is plot-relevant to the rest of the book and sets the tone of the novel well.

If anyone would like to check out my prologue and tell me if it passes literary muster, I’d certainly appreciate the feedback.

OK, I agree with those who say “it depends.” In my own novel, I have a prologue. Here’s why. This is the scene that is the catalyst for the rest of the novel’s action; two characters get the phone call saying that their daughter is dying of a suicide attempt.

Now, obviously, this could’ve been “chapter 1.” But the rest of the book is structured around the four weeks between her attempt and her death. There are four parts, each one corresponding to a particular week. So the opening scene, while absolutely vital, does not work in the first section. This isn’t laziness on my part; it isn’t long (1 1/2 pages); it doesn’t introduce much backstory. So many of the criticisms leveled at prologues is unwarranted in this case, IMO.

(Can I add that a professional author and a top agent read the prologue and first few chapters, and neither had an issue with the opening being a “prologue”?)

In my current WIP, I don’t have a prologue. I open with chapter 1; the novel’s structure doesn’t warrant a prologue or epilogue. So whether a prologue is okay or not really does depend on the novel.

I feel like I need to start a support group for prologues. I’ll also invite semicolons, adjectives, and even adverbs.

Why must we hate prologues? Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes page 99 works, other times it doesn’t. I, myself, have never read a prologue I didn’t like. I think it’s a nice framing device, and I look forward to the end of books who use them to see how it all comes together.

I like the comparison of a prologue to throat clearing very much and I’ve heard and read enough agents to know they hate it, yet I was there when an agent, right after she told everyone not to write prologues, heard a conference attendee read his prologue and said she loved it and to please send her the ms.

The prologue in The Story of Edgar Sawtelle was very mysterious and seemed to have nothing to do with the story, until about 2/3s of the way in, I started realizing the connection. When that connection was confirmed, I went back to re-read the prologue. For me, in this case, the reading experience was a good one. I enjoyed keeping that bit of mystery at the back of my mind and then to discover how everything fits.

Okay, here’s my take. As an author, it depends on the length and need for a prologue. I agree that writers many times use prologues as the lazy way of backstorying. (Yes I just made that word up.) Personally, I only use them if an immediate setting set-up is needed and/or if there is a major need for foreshadowing. Prologues should never and I mean never be longer than 2 1/2 pages and that’s pushing it for me. I will put the caveat that many times I’ve skipped a prologue, loved the work and regretted not reading it first. It’s the deftness with which you use prologues that makes them necessary or unnecessary. Is that convoluted enough?

As a reader, I do tend to get impatient with badly done prologues. As an author, though, I can only tell you my own experience: for both my first two books, I did not have a prologue at first, and my editor specifically asked me to write one for both. And I do get frequent compliments on the prologues from readers. There really are exceptions to every rule, and it depends on your book.

I agree with everything Daryl said. I have a prologue at the start of Immortal, I like it, it’s important to the story, it sets in place an important underlying plot point in the most elegant and efficient way possible, and it introduces the central conceit: that the narrator is very, very old. Can the book still be read without the prologue? Sure, but it won’t be as good of a book. Likewise the epilogue. And chapters three, five, seven, twelve and seventeen, all of which are standalone flashback chapters that illuminate the character but aren’t directly consequential to the main story. But I would no sooner take all of that out of the novel than I would take out all of the commas or all of the adjectives.

Don’t blame the prologue for bad writing. Blame the writer for writing a bad prologue.

I think there’s a bit of a kneejerk reaction to what is being said here. There’s a sense that there’s a hatred for prologues. But, the fact is the prologue is a style device. Some use it, some don’t. Out of habit, I almost always write one. But, as was said previously, it might be for my own benefit. I would hope that the presence of a prologue would not be what sinks my book in the eyes of an agent.

I am pro-prologue. The end. I love to read them, as well as write them. I agree that it has to be needed, not be a possible “weave” into the story- but I find it kind of lazy to skip it. I do honestly wonder if some agents hit the “skip” button as soon as they see it titled, “Prologue” though, I feel that it is important to find one willing to read it, see it’s purpose, and enjoy it- then to settle, take it out for the sake of hooking an agent- and losing a wonderful and needing portion of the tale….

I have a trust issue with contemporary prologues. If they’re empty showmanship or lazy writing, they just wreck my belief in everything that follows. Like other parts of the novel, if the prologue is art, then it’s a keeper. Otherwise, it deserves the axe.

I skip the prologues (both reading them and writing them), but I do read the epilougues. Is this being unfair to the writer of a good prologue? Possibly. But, time is limited and I just want the story to begin…

I can see both views because I have read some really awful prologues that made no sense in any capacity, but usually the prologue is important and adds a lot of depth to a MS without having to do a lot of awkward telling/info dump later in the book. I think the difference is if the prologue is a scene(good), or if it is a few pages of backstory exposition (bad). I never skip them, and I’m a little nervous because I happen to have two in my work *hangs head with shame*, but I stand by them because they work for my book and they are relevant.

At least I know not to submit a MS to Miss Snark. Now if only I knew who she was.

I love prologues, all of my books have them, except my current WIP. I don’t like them long, mostly just a paragraph, although for A Warrior Made it was a page. I tend to view prologues as the equivalent of the first five minutes of a TV show, before the title sequence.

[…] over at Pub Rants: Why Prologues Often Don’t Work Another opinion from BookEnds LLC and from Writer Unboxed * All is not lost. A week without internet allows me to slow back down. There is definitely a […]